SUBJECT:

TOPIC:

Date Made:

TORTS

QUASI-DELIC DEFINED Aug. 26, 2016

Digest Maker:
Michaela Camitan

CASE NAME: Garcia v. Florido

PONENTE: Antonio, J.

Case Date: August 31, 1971

Case Summary:
A public utility car owned by one respondent and driven by another respondent was traversing a highway, when it collided with a passenger bus, injuring the passengers of the
car. A criminal case was filed against the bus driver by the Chief of Police. 20 days later,
the passengers instituted this civil action for damages. TC dismissed the civil action, holding that there should be an express waiver or reservation of the right to institute a separate
civil action.
Rule of Law:
Rule 111, Section 1, ROC. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. xxx
Rule 111, Section 2, ROC. When separate civil action is suspended. After the criminal
action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action. xxx
Rule 111, Section 3, ROC. When civil action may proceeded independently. In the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
Article 33, NCC. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and
shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Article 2177, NCC. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant.

BLOCK D 2019 !1

Detailed Facts:
Petitioners German Garcia, Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital, together with his
wife, Luminosa, and Ester Francisco, bookkeeper of said hospital, hired a PU car owned
and operated by respondent, Marcelino Inesin, and driven by respondent, Ricardo
Vayson, for a round-trip from Oroquieta City to a conference in Zamboanga City.
While the PU car was at a slight curve, it collided with an incoming passenger bus owned
and operated by the Mactan Transit Co., Inc. and driven by respondent, Pedro Tumala.
Petitioners sustained various physical injuries which necessitated their medical treatment
and hospitalization.
Petitioners filed with CFI an action for damages, alleging that both drivers of the car and
bus were driving in a reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent manner in gross violation
of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of the passengers.
Respondents filed a MTD saying that petitioners had no cause of action because 20
days before the filing of the action for damages, respondent Pedro Tumala (bus driver)
was charged in a criminal case filed by the Chief of Police for "double serious and less
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence" and with the filing of the criminal
case, no civil action could be filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal case has been
finally adjudicated (Sec. 2, Rule 111 RoC).
TC dismissed it and declared that whether or not "the action for damages is based on
criminal negligence or civil negligence known as culpa aquiliana in the Civil Code or tort
under American law, there "should be a showing that the offended party expressly
waived the civil action or reserved his right to institute it separately".
Issue:
(S) W/N the civil action is based on quasi-delict - YES
(S) W/N the petitioners may file a civil action separate from the criminal action instituted
by the Chief of Police despite not reserving such right - YES
Holding:

BLOCK D 2019 !2

1. The essential averments for a quasi-delictual action under Articles 2176-2194, NCC are
present in this case, namely:
a) act or omission of the private respondents;
b) presence of fault or negligence or the lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus resulting in the collision of the bus with the passenger car;
c) physical injuries and other damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the collision;
d) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault
or negligence of private respondents; and
e) the absence of pre-existing contractual relations between the parties.
The violation of traffic rules is merely descriptive of the failure to observe the degree of
care and excessive speed is a clear indication of negligence resulting in the injuries. Since
the same negligent act resulted in the filing of the criminal action by the Chief of Police
and the civil action by petitioners, it is inevitable that the averments on the drivers' negligence in both complaints would substantially be the same. The same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasidelict or culpa extra-contractual.
2. Petitioners never intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of Police and
neither has the said criminal action been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of
said accused. It is, therefore, evident that by the institution of the present civil action for
damages, petitioners have in effect abandoned their right to press recovery for damages
in the criminal case, and have opted instead to recover them in the present civil case.
As a result of this action of petitioners, the civil liability of private respondents to the former
has ceased to be involved in the criminal action. Undoubtedly an offended party loses his
right to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case, not only when he has waived the
civil action or expressly reserved his right to institute, but also when he has actually instituted the civil action. For by either of such actions his interest in the criminal case has disappeared.
Ruling:
The institution of the civil action for recovery of damages under quasi-delict, whether as
one governed by Rule 111 which require reservation or by Article 33 where reservation
need not be made, the SC finds no legal justification for the respondent courts order of
dismissal.
Other Opinions:
J. Barredo | Concurring
He believes that the provisions involved in this case are Article 2176 and 2177. Since the
case is predicated on them and not on the civil liability imposed by the RPC, he cannot
see why a reservation had to be made in the criminal case. He concurs the the reversal of
the TCs dismissal, subject to the limitation mentioned in the last sentence of Article 2177,
which means that of the two possible judgments, the injured party is entitled exclusively to
the bigger one.
BLOCK D 2019 !3